"You aim at a devout life, dear Philothea, because as a Christian you know that such devotion is most acceptable to God's Divine Majesty," says St. Francis de Sales in his book "Introduction to the Devout Life".
And we can all be Philotheas, as St. Francis notes: "I have made use of a name suitable to all who seek the devout life, Philothea meaning one who loves God."

Pages

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Natural Family Personalism

I’d like to pick up my thread on modernism
as it is expressed in phenomenology and personalism, and attempt to make some
points about NFP, “serious reasons”, and conscience.

As I mentioned in my previous
post, it
seems to me that the combination of phenomenology and personalism – which go
hand-in-hand – leads the untrained lay “philosopher” into some serious errors
of theology, morality, and logic which can be summed up in the one sentence
that epitomizes society today: “It’s all about me.”

Modernist/personalist philosophy
says that “reality” is to be found in the heart, and is not concerned with
whether that “reality” exists outside the experience of the believer. We see this percolating down through secular
society as the notion that the only thing that matters is “my experience” of
whatever “reality” might be under consideration. I don’t think it’s too
much of a jump to see that current popular thinking on the use of NFP is a
product of modernism. I’m not saying that NFP is not a licit form of birth
control, because the Church has made it clear that it is – for “serious
reasons”, of course. And there’s the rub…again.

As I have developed my thinking about NFP and expressed it
on this blog, I have received several comments along the lines of “you can’t
judge other people’s reasons for using NFP”. For the most part, this is true,
and I personally do not judge others’ unknown
reasons for using NFP (heck, I don’t even know
whether or not they ARE using NFP unless they tell me!).

But this “don’t judge me” attitude also makes the modernist/phenomenologist/personalist
foundation of current NFP thinking quite obvious. It says loud and clear that each individual’s experience is the
determinant of the “reality” of the “serious reasons” for NFP use. On the one
hand, NFP proponents rightly claim that recent Church documents specifically
state that NFP is allowed, but on the other, they dismiss the “serious reasons”
part because they assume that this is part of the personal experience that defines the reality of the need to
regulate births.

I’ve found it difficult to reason with many NFP promoters
because of their idea that there’s no “reality” of “serious reasons” outside
the person’s experience. But this notion is wrong. Objectively wrong.
Otherwise, we are reduced to relativism, which is an untenable position.

There is Church
teaching (on this and many other subjects). There is Truth – objective truth. Truth is truth whether or not one’s
experience agrees with that truth. For example, you can say “I don’t believe in
gravity” all you want, but you are still going to fall when you step off the
edge of a cliff. And you can say “I don’t believe in hell” all you want, but,
as Venerable Fulton Sheen said, “You will when you get there.”

With NFP and the regulation of births, we get into all
manner of emotional objections that are rooted in personal experience – and
there are some tragic ones to consider! But just because a teaching of the
Church is a “hard saying” doesn’t mean that we are not called to follow it,
does it? If you went to a Novus Ordo Mass last Sunday, hopefully you heard a
little about “hard sayings”.

Our true home is in Heaven, and we don’t get there by taking
the easy road. Whenever we find ourselves saying, “It’s too haaaaard”, we should remember that the
path to holiness is not an easy one (please, someone, remind me of this next
time I’m feeling sorry for myself!). That’s why Our Lord said, “How narrow the gate and
constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few” (Matt
7:14).

The
path to holiness will involve some
pain – physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual. We tend to forget that in
this world; instead, we seek always to alleviate the pain in whatever way seems
to be the most expedient. Why do you think medical insurance is so expensive? I
think that, in part, it’s because we as a society have become so dependent on
it. We count on the medical professionals to solve even the most minor of our
physical (and psychological) maladies. Watch a few TV commercials: whatever
ails you, there’s a drug for that!

The
point I’m trying to make is that our fallen human nature will likely try to
convince us that we have a “serious reason” to avoid pregnancy, even when that
reason is only a mild inconvenience. It’s difficult to discern a truly “serious”
reason in our society today, since most people are pushing the small family
idea under the guise of “responsible parenthood”; we are easily fooled by the
secular voices and attitudes sounding in our ears and thoughts. But just
because it’s easy to fall into the trap doesn’t mean we should jump in
willingly. If we abandon any objective standard for “serious reasons”, then
moral relativism creeps in and we allow any
reason to be “serious”…just because it feels
that way to the individual couple.

So, what about objective standards, then? That leads me to consider other
comments I’ve received and read on other blogs – the ones claiming that no pope
has given a definitive list of “serious reasons”, so it’s clearly up to each
individual to decide what’s “serious” enough for them. On one level, I agree
that this is true: there’s no exhaustive
list, and individual circumstances surely will play a part in a couple’s
decision to use NFP. Still, prior to the major modernist take-over at Vatican
II, there had been some guidance in examining the reasons for using periodic
continence. In his Allocution to Midwives, Pope Pius XII said:

Serious
motives often put forward on medical, eugenic, economic, and social grounds can
exempt husband and wife from the obligatory positive debt of the procreation of
children for a long period, or even for the duration of the marriage.

Granted, he is not laying out specific problems, and in the decades
since, the modernist influence has encouraged a broad interpretation of these
terms. However, from the homily I transcribed here,
we have this non-modernist interpretation:

Medical: serious real and objective dangers to the physical
and even psychological health of one or both partners, usually the woman.

Eugenic: real possibility of serious incurable hereditary
defects of the child. This may last for the duration of the marriage, or it may
be for a period of time, for example when a woman must undergo medical
treatment with certain types of drugs that will cause birth defects.

Economic: this refers to true financial hardship. True
financial hardship. In such a profoundly materialistic society as ours, this
one requires brutal honesty before God. All too often in our culture, we see
the trappings of life placed ahead of life itself.

Social: This would include problems in the social order,
like the tyrannical Chinese one-child policy; or natural disasters, like
floods, fires, wars, and so forth.

Admittedly, this is a priest
speaking – not a bishop or a doctor of the Church or a pope. His interpretation
makes sense, though; it’s grounded in centuries-old Church teaching, and it is
not colored by feel-good personalistic double-speak.

For further guidance concerning “serious”
reasons, we can consider thatPope Pius XII also noted that

The
moral lawfulness of practicing periodic continence should be determined by
whether or not the couple’s intention is based on sufficient and
worthy moral grounds. The mere fact that the husband and wife do not offend
the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring the child who is
born in spite of the precautions they have taken would not of itself alone
be a sufficient guarantee of the right intention and the unquestionable
morality of the motives themselves.

So, the question of “serious
reasons” is definitely something to be guided by a properly formed conscience.
The problem is that the modernist, personalistic tendencies that have come into
play since Vatican II have led the faithful to an erroneous view of conscience.
Many forget – or never knew – that one’s conscience must be properly formed in accordance with
Church teaching. It’s not enough to say, “I examined my conscience”; there must
be a constant striving to align that conscience with the mind of the Church.

And the mind of the Church has
been dead set against birth control since the beginning.

I’ll end with an excerpt from a
very cogent comment was left by Cindy on another
blog (my emphases):

…[A]fter
5 years of successful NFP practice, I abandoned it completely when I realized
that my knowledge had crossed a very ambiguous moral line. When my
relationship with my husband became a scheduled event, when loving each other
was limited to infertile days, when I wanted my husband and he resisted because
it was my fertile time, I decided to call it quits….That same year, I was at a
homeschool conference where a priest was discussing NFP. His words ring in my
ears still:

“NFP
is neither morally good or evil. It is morally neutral. And it would be a good
idea to stop encouraging couples to use it for spacing their children. In
many occasions, it only leads married couples to sin. It should be avoided
unless there is some truly grave reason for married couples to avoid having
more children, such as the case of serious illness of the mother which might
leave other children orphaned.”

…After
discussing the matter with many of our NFP using friends, we all agreed. We
were using NFP as contraception. We didn’t want any more children. Out of
10 or so couples, only 1 couple was using NFP to space their children. It was
eye opening. While I agree…that, fundamentally, there is absolutely nothing but
freedom in knowing how our bodies work, the motives behind NFP use are
often very troubling. And this is not God’s way. Science is an amazing tool,
but when we place our faith in our scientific methods over our faith in
God’s Providence, we are in jeopardy of losing our souls.

…[W]e
cannot abandon our reasoning ability. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas reflected, our
reasoning must be properly ordered lest it lead us to sin. I have come to
believe it is highly imprudent to tell married couples that NFP is a moral
good.

For more NFP posts on
this blog, click on the "NFP Posts" tab at the top of the page.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Custom-made Altar Antependia

Click the photo and visit the page for information on purchasing altar antependia.

Translate

Catholic Contraception?

Despite the defensiveness of the promoters, the occasional critic does speak against NFP. And if one looks carefully at what the critics say, there is much to be considered. Michael Malone's book exposes many logical fallacies in the arguments of NFP promoters, and asks critical questions that, to my knowledge, NFP promoters cannot and have not answered.

My NFP book is now available!

This is a compilation of my blog posts on NFP, along with some extra commentary and explanation. Click on the image to go to Amazon and see the full description. Available on Kindle, too.

Zeal For Thy House is available!

This is a compilation of my posts on the liturgy - liturgical abuse, music in the liturgy, the Novus Ordo, and the Traditional Latin Mass. "Glimmers of Hope" are also included to show that progress IS being made! Click on the image to order at Amazon. It's available on Kindle, too.

Contact Me

Follow by Email

Followers

Total Pageviews

About Me

My husband and I live in Baker City, Oregon. I care deeply about the liturgy, and pray ardently for the "reform of the reform". I think we've strayed far from our Catholic identity over the last 50 years, and we need to return to the traditional teachings of the Church in order to regain lost ground.